|
Monday, March 5, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Eric Holder declares
the president of the United States contemplating killing you qualifies as "due
process," Haditha tries to recover from today's assault, Iraqi youths into EMO
(or suspected being into) find their names on death lists, and more.
Saturday night on NBC's The Firm
(airing new episodes in the second hour of prime time and featuring Juliette
Lewis delivering an amazing performance in the role of Tammy -- played by
Holly Hunter in the film) a military officer heard his son shot while the two
were on the phone. He needed Mitch (Josh Lucas) and Ray (Callum Keith Rennie)
to help him find out what happened to his son. They quickly figure out that
they're dealing with an assassination ordered by the White House.
Ray: This kill list, an actual list
created by the feds?
Mitch:
Approved by the White House, enemies of the state who are pre-approved for
assassination.
Ray:
Pre-approved?
Mitch: If US agents
or military come across names on that list they are authorized to kill -- no
due, process nothing.
Ray: Okay, I
understand that on a battlefield but Rashad's an American on US
soil.
Mitch: We've killed people
on this list before, even US citizens, but never here in the US.
Ava and I noted the dialogue at Third. As the
episode(written by Lukas Reiter and Jonathan Shapiro) progresses, the government
tries to stonewall the FISA court. Mitch wants to know when it became
acceptable to kill US citizens on US soil and when the discussion on that took
place? Today Jason Ditz (Antiwar.com) reports the
disturbing news that US Attorney General Eric Holder, speaking at Northwestern
University, declared that such assassinations were "legal and constitutional"
and that Barack Obama -- or apparently any other US president to come -- making
the decision to assassinate equaled "due process." No, it doesn't. Some will
quibble and say that Holder was speaking of overseas (which doesn't make it any
more legal) but if he's declaring that it can happen anywhere -- anywhere
includes the United States.
In remarks delivered at the
Northwestern University School of Law today, Attorney General
Eric Holder provided the Obama Administration's most detailed public description
yet of the legal authority under which it believes it can carry out targeted
killings, including of U.S. citizens abroad. Unfortunately, the remarks still
amounted to a broad defense of the government's claimed expansive authority to
conduct targeted killings far from a battlefield, without judicial review of its
legal justifications or evidence, either before or after a killing. The remarks
also mischaracterized the debate over the need for judicial review of targeted
killing decisions
Echoing statements made by Defense Department general
counsel Jeh Johnson last month, Holder claimed that "some
have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal
court before taking action against a United States citizen" (our
emphasis), and argued that courts should not get involved in the "real-time
decisions" to deploy lethal force. But Holder is constructing a straw man
argument here. We are not aware of anyone who has argued that judicial
review before a targeted killing is always required, or that courts should
exercise real-time oversight over lethal operations.
Rather, in a lawsuit we filed with the Center for
Constitutional Rights in 2010 on behalf of the father of Anwar al-Awlaki (who
was placed on a government kill list in 2009 and died in a joint CIA/military
drone strike in fall 2011), we asked the court to set standards describing when
the government could constitutionally use lethal force against a U.S. citizen
away from an active battlefield. We also asked the court to order the government
to reveal the criteria it used to place al-Awlaki on so-called "kill lists." And
we made clear to the court that we were not asking it to intervene in real-time
decision-making by the Executive Branch. The court dismissed our lawsuit on the
grounds that it raised "political questions," and held that the judiciary had no
role to play in deciding the legal criteria pursuant to which the executive
branch could take the life of one of its own citizens.
As Holder's speech demonstrates, though, judicial oversight is
critically important given the breathtaking authority the government has
claimed. Holder acknowledged that all U.S. citizens, including those accused of
being terrorists, have a right to due process under the Constitution, but he
argued that the Executive Branch, alone, should determine whether the due
process requirement is satisfied when the government claims law of war or
self-defense authority to kill. In a system of constitutional checks and balances,
that simply cannot be the case. Courts must have a role in determining whether
the government's authority to kill its own citizens is legal and whether a
decision to kill complies with the Constitution. Otherwise, the government can
wield the power to take life with impunity. We should not trust any president --
whether this one or the next -- to make such momentous decisions fully insulated
from judicial review. As the Supreme Court has admonished, "a
state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights
of the Nation's citizens."
Michael Ratner: But what brings us really and brings me
particularly to focus on these documents is the Center for Constitutional Rights
and myself are advisors to Julian Assanfe and WikiLeaks, legal advisors. And
we've been particular advisors about the Bradley Manning trial [. . .] So in
these documents, these Stratfor documents, there's one document from Fred Burton
who is the vice president, former US official, a counter-terrorism official,
that says, "We have a sealed indictment on Julian Assange. Keep this private."
He did this in January 2011, just over a year ago. And, of course, WikiLeaks is
analyzing documents and sees this document and says, "What's this? Is this true?
Is this valid?" And, of course, until we see it and know it, we don't know that
it's 100% valid, but what Fred Burton has done in the past has been very
reliable. And he's very well connected. So, for example, in another e-mail he
says, within 10 days after the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, he said, "I can
get the documents that were seized in that house from Osama bin laden." So
these guys have very close connections with US intelligence. Other parts of
these documents, in addition to this claim that there's an indictment, where
they talk about Julian Assange, they talk about Julian Assange as a high tech
terrorist, that's what Fred Burton says, and that we have to bring him down the
way that we bring down al Qaeda.
Heidi Boghosian: No.
Michael Ratner: That's what they say.
Heidi Boghosian: No.
Michael Ratner: And the way we're going to do it, we're going to
jail him wherever we can, we're going to cut off all his finances and, of
course, that's exactly what happened. They cut off Master Card contributions to
WikiLeaks, they cut off Visa donations to WikiLeaks, they cut off pay pal to
WikiLeaks, and they're obviously going after them any way they can. So there's
a lot of accuracy in this. But, lookit, from my point of view, the fact that
there might be, or it looks like there is, a sealed indictment against Julian
Assange is just incredible to me. I mean, first of all, it would be, I think
it's the first time in US history that a US journalist has actually been
indicted for publishing classified documents that he himself didn't have access
to as a classified person. SO that's the first thing. The second thing that's
amazing, the secrecy. If he's been indicted, it's by a secret grand jury
sitting in Alexandria [Virginia], it's a secret indictment and it's secret to
me, one of his --
Heidi Boghosian: Attorneys, legal advisors.
Michael Ratner: -- legal counsel, legal advisors, right. It's
secret to Julian Assange, it's secret to WikiLeaks, but it's apparently not
secret to a private security company that's like a back door for the US spy
agencies.
Heidi Boghosian: Michael, how often are secret indictments brought
and under what circumstance?
Michael Ratner: The normal case of a secret indictment is when
a person is not in custody and they're afraid, if a person gets news of a
secret indictment, they'll flee. Now, of course, Julian Assange is in custody.
I mean, he sort of is in custody. He has a [monitoring] bracelet on, he's under
court --
Heidi Boghosian: He's under house arrest.
Michael Ratner: He's under house arrest essentially in the UK --
not house arrest exactly, but he has to go back to his house every day at six
o'clock [p.m.], he could meet people for lunch or something --
Heidi Boghosian: He's under supervision.
Michael Ratner: And he has a bracelet that he can't get off. So the
normal case would be when a person -- not really Julian Assange -- but when a
person doesn't really know about it and then they do it in the sealed way so the
person doesn't flee. Now I think in this case, it may be --
Heidi Boghosian: I was going to say, could this be because he's
enjoyed such broad support, especially in the online communities? That the
government, with their private arm, is afraid that there would be such a
tremendous outcry and more support? And perhaps more 'hacktivism,' as they
say?
Michael Ratner: There's certainly going to be hacktivism as a
result of this. I actually think the explanation may be differnent. Two
things. One, let's hope it's not really an indictment and that the government
isn't so crazy, Obama isn't so crazy -- and Holder, aren't so crazy to make
their legacy to be the execution of a person I consider to have exposed --
along with Bradley Manning if it's true that he was the source --
Heidi Boghosian: Murder.
Michael Ratner: Murder. Serious War Crimes. Thousands of deaths in
Iraq. The Collateral Murder video of the Reuters people being killed. So these
people have done an amazing, an amazing piece of work. And the idea
--
Heidi Boghosian: A public service.
Michael Ratner: A public service. And the idea, of course -- I
mean this is what happens to whistle blowers. They first get -- You know the
government in power or charge, Obama and Holder, go after them --
Heidi Boghsian: Retaliation.
Michael Ratner: Right. And eventually they're seen as what they
really are, which are people who have played the crucial role in trying to
change society in a positive direction.
A sealed indictment against Julian Assange would underscore the
very thing Wikileaks has been fighting against: abuses the government commits in
an environment of secrecy and expansive, reflexive calls for "national
security." From the shocking, inhumane treatment of Bradley Manning, to secret
grand jury proceedings, to Stratfor's apparent knowledge of the existence of a
sealed indictment before either Mr. Assange or the American public had such
knowledge, the government's conduct in this case reveals why more transparency,
not more secrecy, is essential. This would also mark perhaps the first time a
journalist has been prosecuted for allegedly receiving and publishing
"classified" documents. Indicting Julian Assange would represent a dramatic
assault on the First Amendment, journalists, and the public's right to
know.
Rather than promoting transparency as promised, the Obama
administration has aggressively pursued whistleblowers and dissenters, launching
Espionage Act prosecutions twice as many times as all previous administrations
in the last century combined. Attorney General Eric Holder should rethink this
dangerous course. Instead of pursuing Julian Assange, Mr. Holder should
investigate the serious crimes and abuse of government authority exposed by
Wikileaks.
From shredding democracy in the US to the apparently failed 'democracy'
'experiment' of Iraq, early this morning in Iraq, police forces were attacked in
Haditha. Jane Arraf (Al Jazeera) reports, "This was
obviously a very well-planned attack. It began when gunmen, dozens of them
according to police sources, commandeered and stole SWAT vehicles. The SWAT
teams are part of the counterterrorism forces. They drove around the city,
dressed as SWAT members, in black-and-blue univorms. As they were stopped at a
checkpoint, they opened fire." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) notes one of the
assailants was killed in the attacks and that they used "at least 14 black
USVs". Jack Healy (New York
Times) reports that there were approximately 40 assailants and that
they wore police uniforms and used vehicles which were like or were similar (or
actually were) police vehicles and that they passed through police checkpoints
by claiming "they had arrest warrants for criminal suspects." David Blair (Telegraph of London) adds,
"The nine officers on duty, who appear to have been taken in by this deception,
were then disarmed and shot dead." AFP
states that, in addition to the "stolen army vehicles," they had others
dispersed throughout the city in civilian cars and that police Col Mohammed
Shauffeur and Captain Khaled Mohammed Sayil's homes were attacked with both men
kidnapped and three bodyguards killed. Later Shauffer's corpse turned up in with
"gunshots to the head." Bassim al-Anbari (AFP) quotes police Lt Col
Owaid Khalaf who states, "More than 50 gunment altogheter started attacking
checkpoints all over the town." Fadhel al-Badrani (Reuters) reports,
"Three policemen survived the attacks with wounds and were being treated at
Haditha hospital. A medical source at Haditha hospital confirmed the hospital
received 27 bodies of slain victims and was treating three wounded." BBC News reports both Col Mohammed Shauffeur and Captain
Khaled Mohammed Sayil corpses were discovered ("shot dead") shortly after they
were kidnapped, "According to the Associated Press news agency, an al-Qaeda flag
was raised at one of the checkpoints that was hit." NPR, in their hourly
news updates, notes that "reportedly" the flag was raised.
AP really milks the "al Qaeda" -- notice it's not
"al Qaeda in Iraq" and, turns out, they're yet again wrong. Why do they lie?
Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) explains, "During the
clashes, the attackers raised the black flags of Islamic State of Iraq -- an
umbrella group which includes al Qaeda in Iraq." Sam Dagher (Wall St. Journal) offers,
"The Islamic State of Iraq, which has claimed responsibility for a string of
recent bombings, across the country appears to be stepping up efforts to
eliminate all those who played a prominent role in the anti-al Qaeda Awakening
movement launched by the U.S. military at the height of its presence in Iraq
five years ago."
Alsumaria TV notes that, using "machine guns and
grenades" the assailants carried out the attacks and quotes an unnamed "source
in operational command of Anbar province" stating that "the gunmen took control
of the majority of the checkpoints in the judiciary." The Herald Sun states, "Shauffeur's body was
found in a Haditha marketplace and Sayil was discovered in an alleyway,
blindfolded with fatal gunshots to the head." Alsumaria explains that there is a vehicle and
pedistrian ban in Haditha currently as a result of the attacks.
France utterly condemns the attacks perpetrated this morning
northwest of Baghdad against the security forces which led to the death of 26
police officers.
It extends its condolences to the Iraqi people and the families of
the victims and expresses its solidarity with the Iraqi authorities in their
fight against terrorism.
In this context, France reaffirms that the Iraqi leaders must be
able to work together in order to respond to the challenges posed by the
violence and to meet the expectations of the Iraqi people. France stands
alongside Iraq and reaffirms its full support for the Iraqi institutions in
their efforts to promote stability and security.
Xinhua adds, "Later in the day, Iraqi
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, the Commander in Chief of Iraqi Armed Forces,
sacked Anbar's provincial operations chief Lieutenant General Abdul-Aziz
al-Obeidi from his post, and ordered the appointment of Lieutenant General Tariq
al-Azzawi instead after the deadly attacks in Haditha." RTT notes, "A Sunni heartland and a former
stronghold of insurgents, Anbar has been peaceful since a suicide-bomber
targeted a bank in Haditha a year ago."
In addition to the above, Alsumaria also notes a Mosul home invasion in
which a soldier was shot dead in his own home. There's enough violence, by the
way, that Reuters might -- MIGHT -- get off their lazy butts and do a "Factbox"
on violence today -- something they've avoided for about a week now (despite the
continued violence). Alsumaria adds that a Kirkuk roadside bomb
apparently targeted Judge Assem Omar who emerged without any injuries; however,
his driver was wounded. In addition, they note that the corpse of Baquba fuel station
worker Ali Hussein was discovered dumped by the side of the road and he
apparently died from the gun shots to the head and chest and that this follows
the discovery yesterday of the corpse of a young man who was executed by a
Baquba 'firing squad' made up of gang members.
The violence never ends and maybe it never ends because security is never
the focus of the Baghdad-based government. Dropping back to February 13th:
By the way, why is Iraq suffering from so much violence? Because
the police are idiots. There's no other conclusion when you read this
Al
Rafidayn article. The greatest threat to Iraqis, the
Baghdad police believe, is Emo kids. Yes, Emo has made it to Iraq. And there is
no concept or understanding of it on the part of the police who are connecting
it to Satanism, to same-sex sex, and a hundred other things including autism.
Autism has been a very popular 'cause' in Iraq so far this month. Last week,
numerous stories at numerous outlets insisted that cigarette smoking by the
mother causes children to born autistic. (No, it doesn't. Nor does Emo cause
autism.) Of course, these anti-smoking pieces only began appearing after the
government voted to ban smoking in public places. Autism is not caused by
smoking, it's not caused by Emo.
For those late to the party on Emo,
it's a type of music, early Dashboard Confessional (Chris
Carrabba's "Screaming Infidelities" remains a benchmark for the genre),
My Chemical Romance, it's a fashion
which includes long bangs covering an eye or both, it's many things. Here's a
little tip for the Baghdad police, Emo is a solid genre of music and, most
importantly, Emo could take root in Iraq. Iraq could be the MidEast center for
Emo music. It has all that's needed, all the elements. Instead of trying to
stamp it out, the government should be realizing that this could be a calling
card for the country and part of a revitalization of the Iraqi cultural
scene.
Today, the attack on Emo youth or suspected Emo youth in Iraq continues. Wael Grace (Al Mada)
reports that those with longish hair, suspected of being Emo are being
threatened and killed. Grace notes that there are lists of Emo youth (or accused
of being Emo youth) publicly displayed in Sadr City, Shula and Kadhimiya with
the promise that, one by one, each will be killed. An unnamed official in the
Sadr City municipal court states that people have, on their cell phones, the
names of young people to "liquidate" because they are Emo. This is beyond
insanity and what happens when the US government turns a country over to
thugs.
Emo people prefer to express their emotions through unusual means
that some people find disturbing. Yet, for Fadiya, it is more of a style.
'For a month now, I have been immersed in the emo world, after I
have seen it spread among my colleagues, who were wearing very distinctive
costumes, bags and accessories,' she said.
'I do not care about the dark beliefs people usually link to emo. I
like fashion and changed all my clothes to follow the emo style,' she said.
'Now I have huge amounts of accessories to go with every outfit,
which is why I feel different and my family and friends are very impressed,'
added Fadiya.
Fadiya is not the only one who likes to just pick what she likes
from the emo concept. A Facebook group called 'Emo boys and girls in Iraq' says
that 'most people (have) common perception of emo as someone who is very
emotional. Some people just consider emo to be a sense of style.
'Our group is about music, fashion, life issues, whatever you want
... as long as you don't insult anybody.'
al-Attabi noted that, at that point, it seemed as if there wouldn't be the
panic in Iraq the way alarmists had freaked out in Egypt two years prior. Turns
out it's worse than a panic. And last week, Metality UAE
reported metal heads are caught up in the crackdown due to confusion over
what EMO is:
The government is currently running a crackdown on EMO's, but
classifying them as wearing clothing/piercings that are usually associated with
metal and metalheads.
In a post by the Iraq Ministry of the interior, they state that the
way to detect an EMO is that: "they wear strange clothes and tight and the
graphics like skulls, and use the tools of school in the form of skulls, and put
the earrings in their noses and their tongues and other manifestations of the
exotic." (for the entire Ministry statement, click here.)
Sources (who we will not name for their security) say that the Iraq
government is also on the cusp of passing a law that will make wearing metal
band t-shirts or ones with symbols usually related to metal and playing metal
music illegal.
Tricia Macke: Well it was the veterans march you probably heard
nothing about. 320 active duty military and military veterans marched in DC
Presidents' Day. So why no coverage? Plus, what about the issues these vets
are drawing attention to? How big of an issue have active duty suicides become
in the US military? Ben has the Reality Check you won't see anywhere
else.
Ben Swann: Well, in all, about 2,000 people were part of this
march. 320 were active duty members of the military and military veterans
marching, they say, to bring attention to the fact that presidential candidate
Ron Paul is the choice of troops. That based on the fact that Congressman Paul
has raised more money from active duty military than all the other presidential
candidates combined including President Obama. The man who organized the event,
internet host Adam Kokesh who himself is a former Marine Corps Reservist and
served in Iraq
Adam Kokesh: We had over 300 marching in formation to the White
Houe, we did an about face, a symbolic repudiation of our president's foreign
policy and his current military policy.
Ben Swann: For a moment, we're just going to let some of this video
play so you can see the scene for yourself and, tell me this, if this event were
held protesting President Bush a few years ago, you don't think ABC, CBS and
MSNBC would have all been there? What about if this were in support of any
other Republican candidate other than Ron Paul? Just watch.
[Adam Kokesh marches and calls out "President" as the marchers call
out "Paul!"]
Ben Swann: But, again, no media coverage at all. The march,
though, was about more than just foreign policy. As part of this march, these
veterans held a special flag folding ceremony.
Adam Kokesh: We held a flag folding ceremony and held a hand salute
to that flag for as many seconds as troops have committed suicide since Barack
Obama was declared commander-in-chief.
Ben Swann: But there is a very important issue at hand here.
According to the departing Vice Chief of Staff of the Army [Gen Peter
Chiarelli], 164 active-duty army, national guard and reserve troops took their
own lives in 2011 -- compare that with 159 in 2010 and 162 in 2009. The
increase occurred even as the army has expanded suicide prevention efforts --
including drug and alcohol counseling. There's been a steady rise in army
suicides that began in 2004, one year after the start of the Iraq War. So how
do army suicide rates compare to civilian rates? Well take a look. Army
suicide rates have been higher than civilian rates since 2008 when there were
nearly 20 suicides per 100,000 in the army compared with close to 18 suicides
per 100,000 in a civilian population. But look at the numbers in this chart.
It shows how the increase in active duty soldier suicides has risen since 2004.
In 2004, just over 9 suicides per 100,000 people, 24 in 2011 for active-duty
military. Can't give you an answer for why the number of suicides is increasing
so dramatically. But Kokesh and the men and women who chose to march on
Presidents' Day believe they know exactly what's going on.
Adam Kokesh: But I think if the American people knew that the
foreign policy that the troops are being asked to carry out was leading them to
kill themselves in record number, we'd see a much more heated demand for change
in our foreign policy, we'd have the American people paying much more attention
to what's going on in our name and we'd have a lot more of them demanding that
Ron Paul be our next commander in chief.
Ben Swann: So here's what you need to know. As soldiers are
retuning from Iraq and Afghanistan, we have an increasing number of men and
women who are suffering from PTSD -- Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder -- or from
Traumatic Brain Injuries. Those are emotional wounds, they can lead to extreme
violence to themselves or their families when those soldiers return home. As a
country, we're very good at saying that we support our troops. But we need to
be a country that is better about listening to those troops when they come home,
not simply listening to the politicians who are telling us what's best. And
that is Reality Check.
On the topic of the rally and videos, click here for Adam Kokesh speaking at the
February 20th Veterans for Ron Paul action. US House Rep Ron Paul is
running for president, he is the anti-war candidate with some comparing his
run to that of Eugene McCarthy (though I'm not remembering McCarthy's anti-war
stance resulting in his being tarred an "isolationist"). Adam is among many who
have endorsed Ron Paul and Ron Paul has received more donations from active duty
US troops than any other politician running for the GOP presidential nomination
and he's also received more money from active duty troops than has Barack
Obama. Here's a sample of Adam's speech: Adam Kokesh: Dear President Obama, I am writing to you
as just one veteran, just one man. But today you may see that I am joined by
many more. We gather before you in support of Ron Paul and not because we think
he would merely be a better administrator of government than you, but because we
believe your policies to be fundamentally immoral. We are here demanding
peacefully, orderly change at the ballot box. We are gathered here today as
active duty service members and veterans exercising the right to self-expression
that we have all risked our lives to protect -- something you've never done in
uniform. The military you command has made attempts to silence us -- not just in
the existing codes and regulations intended to suppress dissent in the ranks but
also in direct orders that your officers have issued to the troops who would be
with us today, who would speak out against the status quo, who would challenge
the man, who would speak a desperately needed truth to a desperately delusional
power. Do not think for one second that you can silence this voice. Do not dare
whisper the command to silence this voice. Do not deny that Ron Paul is the
choice of the troops. You are not wanted as, you are not respected as and you
are not fit to be the commander in chief of this great [force? -- applause and
cheers are too loud for me to make out his next words].
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment